MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2049860225 · doi:10.1115/omae2009-79996

Near-Wall Turbulent Transport Knowledge for Suitable Flow Assurance Strategies

2009· article· en· W2049860225 on OpenAlexaffabout
Hossein Zeinali, P. Toma, Ergün Kuru

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicDrilling and Well Engineering
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTurbulenceDeposition (geology)ErosionFlow (mathematics)VelocimetryGeologyParticle image velocimetryGeotechnical engineeringPetroleum engineeringMaterials scienceMechanicsEnvironmental scienceSedimentPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Gas-liquid transportation from the deep ocean floor level to wellhead and, then, to platforms and land processing units is often impeded by wax and hydrates deposits; sand erosion and corrosion-related being frequently encountered. During the last decades it was shown that apparently different problems such as sand erosion and deposition-removal of paraffin during turbulent pipe transportation are the effect of near-wall flow transport related to burst-sweep specific turbulent activity. Coherent structures visualized as a sequence of (in) bursts and outburst sweep actions has already been suggested as an important factor for understanding aging of the paraffin deposit and the deposition-removal balance controlling the grow of deposit. This paper, using published models, investigates the effect of near-wall turbulence on removal of small-size particulate matter, first through direct measurement of burst activity, then, using fine sand and glass beads transported as moving bed during turbulent flow condition. Lack of experimental data for assessing the effect of turbulent liquid pipe flow on burst activity for removal of fines created challenging problems. Those include direct assessment of burst frequency and measurement of the rate of fine sand grading and on-line sampling and measuring the rate of fine removal during sand bed or lenticular deposits transportation. Laboratory work uses a Particle Image Velocimetry (PIV) instrument to observe and quantified the burst activity as it progresses from the pipe wall to the turbulent core flow. Experimental data are closely compared to existing literature models; in addition the present laboratory measurements allow for describing the dynamic of a burst as it evolves from the pipe wall to turbulent core regions. The frequency of burst removal is further compared with changing of size distribution during the sand bed-slurry transport stage of this work. Results obtained so far at the University of Alberta with the aid of an experimental loop designed and operated for observing and quantifying selective (size-density) radial-axial transportation of fines are discussed and summarized. It is suggested that the experimental data on fines removal and deposition, particularly related to near-turbulent structure activity, is important for understanding and mitigating a broad range of near-wall turbulent-related flow assurance problems.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.029

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.002

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.009
GPT teacher head0.212
Teacher spread0.204 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicDrilling and Well Engineering→French-language works237,207→